COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION (ERROL WHITE) (Hansard, 7 June 1967)

§ Mr. Bernard Weatherill (Croydon, North-East)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise on behalf of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. White, of Thornton Heath, a matter that has been causing them considerable distress. It concerns their son Errol. The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that over the past few months we have had a considerable volume of correspondence in this matter, and I hope that he will forgive me if, for the benefit of the House, I set out the history.

The problem relates to the working of the Commonwealth Immigration Act. Both Mr. and Mrs. White are of Anglo-Malaysian descent. Mr. White, senior, served in the British Army for seven years during the war with the Royal Corps of Signals. He was discharged in India in 1948 with the rank of W.O.2, and with an exemplary character. On his discharge, his commanding officer had this to say about him: C.S.M. White … has been employed, during his career in the Army, as a cipher operator, and at one time he performed the duties of a senior cipher operator in Bombay Area for a period if 18 months. He is an extremely capable N.C.O. who has a thorough knowledge of his work and he has been an asset to the unit. He has displayed diligence and keenness in his work at all times, possesses good organising ability, and is thoroughly reliable and trustworthy. That is a very good reference. It was during this time that his elder son, Errol, was born in Bombay.

After Mr. White's discharge, he and Mrs. White returned to Malaya, where he quickly obtained a responsible job. But his health was not good, and on 16th January last year he decided to come with 1021 his wife, his daughter and his younger son to Britain to live. He did so—and I stress it—because he had a British passport at that time. The elder son, Errol, was serving with the Malaysian Army, and both on that account and because he was over 16 years of age—he was 19— he was unable to travel with his parents and the family.

Since the Whites returned to England, Mr. White's health has not greatly improved. He has been suffering from a tumour on the pituitary gland in the centre of the brain, and I have the confirmation of the consultant neurologist at the Mayday Hospital in Croydon that although this tumour has been controlled by radiotherapy it has not been eradicated, and may recur.

Towards the end of last year Mr. and Mrs. White sought my help in uniting their family. I had to explain that their son was affected by immigration controls, that it would be necessary for him to obtain a Ministry of Labour voucher, that he would need to have a job to come to if he got permission to come into the country and, above all, must be free to come—because at that time he was serving in the Malaysian Army.

The hon. Gentleman will know the history of the correspondence, and I will not take up time by quoting from it except to say that our hopes were considerably raised by a letter from his predecessor which we received on 8th November. It stated: We are prepared to consider making exceptions to the normal rules for people whose circumstances are exceptional and, though I do not wish to raise hopes unduly, I am prepared to consider whether Mr. White might be admitted without a voucher.… That statement naturally gave us considerable ground for hope, but on 10th January the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me saying that the case had been most carefully considered but that the British High Commissioner at Kuala Lumpar had reported that there were no special grounds for the Minister to make an exception.

My object in raising the matter now is to ask the Minister whether he will have second thoughts. I am the first to appreciate the need for strict immigration controls—we cannot possibly have open house for everyone who wants to come into the country—but I believe that priority should be given to those of 1022 British descent, and that a compassionate view should be taken of families that are split through the workings of the regulations.

The Home Office apparently shows compassion, because in April of this year a boy who arrived here from India without a voucher was admitted. I have here a cutting from the Daily Mirror of 18th April, which states: A boy from India wept with his 16-year-old sweetheart yesterday after hearing that he was to be turned away from Britain. Then, last night, the Home Office overruled the immigration ban and the boy, Yusef Mousa Laher, was released from the detention block at London's Heathrow Airport…A Home Office spokesman announced that Yusef had been allowed into Britain after all. 'It is a very unusual case,' the spokesman said. 'There is no blanket regulation tailor-made for it'. My constituents naturally thought this a little strange, and asked me whether their son should not attempt the same operation. I had to tell them that that could not be, but I find the distinction beween the two cases rather difficult to understand. We can all appreciate the distress of a family which has always been particularly united but is being artificially split as a result of the workings of the law. Mr. White, senior, who has served this country with distinction, is concerned, and understandably concerned, because of his health. I understand that this tumour, although dormant at the moment, affects his vision, and his concern is that he may never see his son again.

The position at the moment is that the boy, Errol, has now been released from the Malaysian Army—it would appear on compassionate grounds as a result of a letter which the consultant neurologist at Croydon wrote to Malaysia. The boy has a job to come to in this country. I have a letter from Stewart Plastics Limited, of Croydon, who have confirmed that they have a job for him if he is able to get a voucher. He has, of course, a home to come to, so that he will in no sense be a charge on the community. All he lacks at the moment is a Ministry of Labour voucher which will gain him entry to the country.

I therefore ask the Minister, in the light of these facts and in view of the state of Mr. White's health, whether he will look at this question once again. On 13th March I asked the Minister of Labour whether he would give priority for the granting of vouchers to children 1023 of British citizens wishing to join their families but prevented from doing so by the working of the Commonwealth Immigration Act. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated: The immigration control already makes due allowance for claims to admission based on British descent or family unity, and I do not think it would be appropriate, in addition, to grant priority on those grounds when issuing vouchers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 29.] I could not understand exactly what that meant. Nevertheless, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at this case again on grounds of humanity. I believe it to be a special case in which he could exercise what discretion he may have to ensure that this family is united in the very near future.

§ The Under-Secretary of State, Home Department (Mr. David Ennals)

I appreciate the genuine concern of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) in raising this matter and his desire to help his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. White. I assure him that I have a great deal of sympathy for them. They are relatively new arrivals in this country and they obviously want to see the rest of their family united with them. I am especially concerned to hear of the ill-health of Mr. White, of which I was not aware.

My right hon. Friend and I strongly agree that the most positive encouragement should be given to Commonwealth immigrants who have settled here and that, wherever possible, arrangements should be made for their families to join them. However, there are many problems for those whose families are divided, particularly for men who may be working here, but whose wives and children are in their countries of origin. Many social problems emerge in these circumstances.

Those of us who are concerned, as we are in the Home Office, to secure the full integration of Commonwealth immigrants into our society, want to see united families here and, this being so, the hon. gentleman will be aware that there is no division of opinion in principle between us. It is inevitable, however, that when we come to argue the case for bringing families together, there must be some definition about who can count as a dependant.

1024 Commonwealth citizens who are here often want to bring in their relatives. I receive letters saying that they want to bring in their sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. If we did not define our terms quite carefully we would not be able to maintain effective control over the flow of people from many parts of the Commonwealth who would come here.

Among those with a legal right of admission are, first, wives and then children below the age of 16 of Commonwealth citizens who are either already here or are coming here. Those who are aged 16 and 17 are not entitled to come under the Act, but my right hon. Friend accepts that, in practice, they should come in as well. However, a Commonwealth citizen who has attained the age of 18 does not qualify to settle here simply because his parents live here. As the hon. Gentleman said, he is expected to qualify under some other head of policy; for example, by obtaining a Ministry of Labour voucher. There are certain other circumstances covering visitors, students and persons of independent means. The rules are set out in the instructions to immigration officers, Cmnd. 3064, which spread the net fairly widely and show the element of compassion exercised by my right hon. Friend in these matters.

I need not trouble the House by going into the rules covering the admission of other categories. We are today dealing with a request that a young man, now aged 20 years and five months, should be allowed to settle and work in this country. The Government have found it essential to regulate the numbers of people who may come here for employment and settlement. Many people regret that this is necessary, although the hon. Gentleman said today, and has mentioned in correspondence, that he recognises, as most hon. Members do, the need for some restriction.

A very large number of Commonwealth citizens would come to this country straight away if the doors were open, and this would create many problems here. I also believe that it would create many problems for the immigrants themselves. Since the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, came into force in July of that year the intake of Commonwealth citizens has been regulated by means of Ministry of Labour vouchers. Young people of 18 and over wishing to come here to work 1025 must be in possession of a Ministry voucher, and the rates at which these may be issued are fixed by the Government from time to time. Since August, 1965, they have been issued at the rate of 8,500 a year, but the demand for these vouchers greatly exceeds the number that we can supply. Many applicants must wait a considerable time.

It would make it difficult for the Minister of Labour if he were to consider compassionate issues and not apply the principle of first come, first served. If he were to consider a special category in this matter and place such people at the head of the queue, those who had been waiting for vouchers would be placed behind them in the queue and would be likely to feel that they had a case for complaint. Because of the pressure from overseas, we are constantly asked by people who want to settle in employment here to be absolved from the voucher requirement or to be given special priority —in other words, they should be allowed to come in immediately rather than having to wait until their turn comes in the voucher queue. If we were to grant every such application we would rapidly undermine the voucher scheme. We must be fair and consistent in enforcing the voucher requirement and in the way in which we grant dispensations, which are granted from time to time.

Mr. White, senior, and the hon. Gentleman are asking us to make an exception in favour of Mr. White's son. The facts are not in dispute. The war service of Mr. White, senior, is greatly appreciated and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to it. Mr. White and his wife are welcome—I will not say "visitors"—arrivals. They are British people and we hope that their life here will be happy. As I said, I am sorry to hear of Mr. White's present ill-health.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, Mr. White, senior, is an Anglo-Malaysian. He has three children, Mr. Errol White, born on 8th February, 1947, and two younger children, both of whom are with him. Mr. White, senior, was registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under Section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and, as a result of his registration, he became eligible to enter this country. So were his two younger children. Mr. Errol White, however, was not.

1026 When Mr. White, senior, obtained his passport in January, 1966, he inquired from the High Commission about the eligibility of his three children. It was made clear to him that his two younger children were eligible, but that his son, who was then aged 18 years and 11 months, was not in view of his age and that he must wait for a Ministry of Labour voucher. I emphasise that the reason why Mr. Errol White was not eligible was because of his age. It was not because he was serving with the Malaysian Forces.

Mr. White, senior, does not dispute that his son Errol could enter by means of a voucher. Indeed, I think that his son Errol himself made application in 1964, although in 1966 application was made on his behalf by Stewart Plastics Ltd., which is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As I have said, it sometimes takes a long time for vouchers to materialise. Mr. White, senior, wanted his son to come straight away, instead of having to wait.

Children under 16 are entitled to come to join their parents or only surviving parent. Those aged 16 and under 18 are also freely admitted if coming to join both parents or the only surviving parent. There are occasions when a rigid rule about age would not be appropriate and special circumstances do arise. These are set out in the Comnd. Paper to which I referred, paragraph 28 of which states: The general rule is that persons of eighteen or over must qualify for admission in their own right, for example as the holders of Ministry of Labour vouchers or as students. But exceptions may be made to this rule. For example, it will be proper to admit an unmarried and fully dependent son or unmarried daughter under 21 who formed part of the family unit overseas if the whole family is coming to settle in the United Kingdom.. The House will see that a young man of 18 who wishes to qualify under this arrangement must satisfy three conditions: first, that he is under 21; secondly, that he is unmarried; and, thirdly, that he is fully dependent on his parents. This is the sort of provision for young men who, either because they are continuing their education or for some other reason—for example, illness—are unable to support themselves.

Mr. Errol White qualified under two conditions—he was under 21 and he was 1027 unmarried. But he was not dependent upon his parents. I do not think that this was ever claimed to be so. The very fact that he himself applied for a voucher in 1964 showed that he was not so dependent. The fact that he served in the Malaysian forces also showed that he was not so dependent.

When the matter was put to my hon. Friend who preceded me in this post, he said that we must look into the circumstances and find out because at that stage we did not know what the circumstances were as they applied to young Mr. White. When we received the information, it was clear to us that there were no special compassionate circumstances relating to Mr. White, junior, which would have led me to advise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make an exception to the agreed rules.

My hon. Friend who preceded me in this post said, in the letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted an extract, that he did not want to raise hopes. My hon. Friend went out of his way to say that he did not want to raise hopes, but he indicated, quite properly, that he would look at the circumstances. In the light of the circumstances, he reached his conclusion. When the hon. Gentleman put the case to me, I looked again at the facts and reached the same conclusion.

This is not because the Home Office or Ministers at the Home Office are not compassionate. There are cases—the hon. Gentleman quoted one, and there are many others—where a combination of circumstances creates a special compassion need; and, in such circumstances, the rules are put aside for such a person. I do not believe that the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman fall into that sort of category. I cannot comment on the case the hon. Gentleman made, because I would want to look at it in detail. I remember the case, but not the details of it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not simply because the young man cried.

I fully sympathise with Mr. and Mrs. White in their desire to have their family all together. They no doubt think that their son would be able to help them if he were here and were able to work here. However, it must be recognised that when the parents decided to come to the United 1028 Kingdom it was known, both to them and to their son, that they must have to face separation for a time. It was made clear to Mr. Errol White that he would have to wait for the issue of an employment voucher. So it was not as if the father thought that the boy would follow, or the boy thought that he would soon be here, and then ugly officials stood in the way. The circumstances were known.

At this stage I can, I think, strike a rather more encouraging note. As I said earlier, the application for an employment voucher by Mr. White was made in April, 1966, just over a year ago. It is always difficult to say exactly when a voucher is likely to be issued, because this depends on the fate of applications already in the queue, whether they are granted or not. The Ministry of Labour has told me that the application made by Stewart Plastics Ltd. should be considered within the next few weeks. Provided that the application is approved, the Ministry states that the voucher should then be issued immediately. The Ministry would expect that, if the application is approved, the voucher would be available within the next three months or so.

This is a very hopeful prospect for Mrs. White, junior. I hope that any thoughts that Mr. White, senior, will not see his son again will be put out of his mind. I hope that he will be able to see his son fairly soon within the rules and regulations as we have to apply them. I hope that the hon Gentleman will agree that this will provide a reasonable answer to Mr. and Mrs. White's request and hopes.

I do not think that it would be right to agree to make an exception to the general rule which would enable their son to join them more quickly than I think will be so. There are very many who are anxious to come to the United Kingdom and who have jobs waiting for them, and often families waiting for them. To make an exception in this case would be unfair to those already in the queue, who may have been waiting for a considerably longer time than Mr. White. I hope that the outcome of this debate will, in fact, lead to a family reunion.